Will the Sesta/Fosta affect SL?

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I only took two years..

You'd have to ask someone with their masters..That's out of my league..

I meant the “Time Warp” dance from “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”. That may be too intense.

[Elinah Iredell]

On 4/8/2018 at 10:32 PM, Fionalein said:

Does that also mean the phone companies will be liable for any illegal action arranged on a phone? Because that will be a hillarious trump in the hands of lawyers (pun intended)

I do not see how they could hold a phone company liable for a private conversation between two people. Not the same thing. 

[Elinah Iredell]

On 3/27/2018 at 5:31 PM, Bree Giffen said:

I've been reading in the news about the passing of a US bill called fosta/sesta which is aimed at sex trafficking by making websites liable for the actions of their users. This has caused Craigslist to close their online personals. Apparently other large forums including Reddit have closed their personals sections as well. Google has also begun removing google drive content that may make them liable.

Will LL follow this trend by stopping all virtual sex work? Or can they bypass any liability by saying any paid sex in SL is virtual and could never support sex traffickers? Considering SL runs on Amazon's cloud service AWS, could Amazon try to mitigate any liability by forcing SL to censor itself?

What do you think about this? No more sugar daddies?

The only way I think there could be a legal problem is if the real world  prostitutes start advertising  and trying to set up real life connections for illegal sex through second life instead of craigslist or backpage.  It has nothing to do with virtual sex this law is about real life sex. 

[NellFury]

On 01/04/2018 at 2:57 AM, Bree Giffen said:

Websites are only closing specific places where solicitations for real life prostitution are occurring.

There are, or there used to be lots of places with voice and cam offerings.  How RL does it have to get?

Also, the people who are really offering illegal services have had years of watching the pursuit of Backpage.  I'm sure they haven;t just packed up and found jobs at WallMart.  They'll be looking for alternative venues, as will the people who use those services. 

The problem with this legislation is that it doesn't go after the people actually doing the trafficking, it just criminalises the services they use.  The people who are really behind the crimes are free to go and find other ways to do business, and you can bet that's exactly what they are doing.

[NellFury]

On 16/04/2018 at 2:00 AM, Elinah Iredell said:

real world  prostitutes start advertising  and trying to set up real life connections for illegal sex

As fair disclosure, I;m writing from a part of the world where prostitution isn't illegal...

This legislation isn't aimed at prostitution per se, it;s aimed at sex trafficking.  Perhaps people in the US can comment on whether legislators find it a happy coincidence that it makes business harder for non-trafficked prostitutes as well.  The confusion between the two seems telling.

[LittleMe Jewell]

19 minutes ago, NellFury said:

The problem with this legislation is that it doesn't go after the people actually doing the trafficking, it just criminalises the services they use.  The people who are really behind the crimes are free to go and find other ways to do business, and you can bet that's exactly what they are doing.

This is actually typical of many of our laws - they seldom result in what folks desire and instead have unanticipated consequences.  Our government isn't great at fully thinking things through.

[Fionalein]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Our government isn't great at fully thinking things through.

Not just yours. You can most likely generalize this on most governments ...

[Innula Zenovka]

On 3/30/2018 at 9:54 PM, Lancewae Barrowstone said:

1. "Cyber-sex" is defined as "the act of role-playing sexual acts or exchanging explicit sexual messages with people in chat rooms...."  Well, now the language broadens to include all online platforms,  including SL, online gaming, anything.

I see that's how cyberlaws.com define cyber sex on their website, which is all very well, but can you please direct me to any actual statue that thus defines and prohibits the activity?   I'm not disagreeing with you,  necessarily -- I haven't read the proposed legislation, so I hope you tell me where to look for the definition in the actual bills.

As far as I understand it, from what little I've read, it seems primarily aimed at prohibiting online services like Craigslist from using internet safe harbour provisions as a defence against laws prohibiting advertising prostitution, so I'm not sure how that would affect SL -- is anyone aware of any previous attempts to prosecute LL for anything like this that has foundered on the safe harbour protection?

[NellFury]

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

...is anyone aware of any previous attempts to prosecute LL for anything like this that has foundered on the safe harbour protection?

That might speak to how likely SL is to be targeted in the near future, but it doesn't answer the question of whether a new risk has been opened up.

I would say all it would take from either side of this equation would be for a bright spark to experiment with using SL as a cover for illegal activities, or for some other genius to decide existing activity is close enough to try and make a political name for themselves.

[Coffee Pancake]

4 hours ago, NellFury said:

There are, or there used to be lots of places with voice and cam offerings.  How RL does it have to get?

If this kills voice and cam sex offerings in SL, I can't say I will be very upset.

[Lancewae Barrowstone]

Well, according to an article on Breitbart.com recently, we read it stated this way:

"FOSTA also authorizes increased penalties — including fines and jail of up to 25 years — for people who “promote or facilitate the prostitution of five or more people or who contribute to sex trafficking through reckless disregard.”


I'm no lawyer but we can pretty well see from this broad language where certain risks MIGHT seem perceivable, as pertains to some things in SL. I don't think we here can define the meanings of this law, because there can be different interpretations of its meanings. And notice the use of the word "or" and not the word "and." That is significant.

We know that it's law enforcers arresting people that brings about clarity of new laws through court judges ruling on the cases. So, for instance, it seems to me that an SL facility hosting certain activities that some law enforcer might decide is "facilitating prostitution of five or more people" (given that cybersex roleplay is seen as "sex") could then act to bring a charge; while some other law enforcer somewhere might decide that even the individuals behind the avatars working as escorts in an SL advertised "escort club" could be seen also as a part of "promoting prostitution" where there are five or more people involved in the club, and so bring charges against individuals too. I don't see why that couldn't be a possibility, because this is all open to interpretation, and different minds interpret things differently. Law enforcers are career minded and ambitious like most everyone else.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Innula Zenovka]

3 hours ago, Lancewae Barrowstone said:

given that cybersex roleplay is seen as "sex"

By whom?    Or, rather, by what what statute?   As far as I understand it, the bill removes various protections afforded by a content provider's safe haven status.   It doesn't actually create any new offences; rather, it removes a defence available under current laws.   So which law, either Californian or Federal, defines cybersex roleplay as sex?

I ask because I do not know -- there may well be one (though it would surprise me if there is) but I don't know much about US law.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Innula Zenovka

[MorganaOConnor]

You guys aren't getting it. The law itself isn't just the issue its the major companies who own our most favorite and popular sites and programs that took drastic measures to censor its users before Trump even signed the bill. Microsoft announced very early in the game they would now be monitoring all the voice and cam calls on Skype and the team speak lines on XBox Live for what they called rather vaguely: any dicussion of graphic violence,sexually explicit language,and basically will just revoke your accounts without warning or refund and will report you to the facists running this ***** show of a law. Facebook is monitoring all conversations on messenger under the same guidelines,Twitter is acting sorta wishy washy they have banned many sex and kink workers while others haven't had an issue...yet. Google drive swept through users accounts and summarily deleeted any videos deemed sexual in nature. While it was always in their TOS not to store x rated vids they had never enforced it and many hard working porn/kink content producers lost large volumes of work that they hadnt had a chance to back up yet. Google photos hasn't done much yet but Im sure its around the corner. 

We have entered into another era in the United States where a common scapegoat is being used to deflect from the real issues. Accusations are no w enough to lead to arrest. This is all based on My extensive readings and conversations with people who have been harassed and arrested without any probable cause or proof. 

Second Life has a thriving escort/Dominatrix scene who use cam and voice and do arrange real life meet ups. They are getting away with money laundering by taking lindens for payment because it doesn't seem like anything suspicious to the casual observer. I'mn sure there will be undercover FBI agents before long on Second Life,IMVU, and all the other little virtual sites looking for these activities. These are very dark times. 

Oh and this whole crusade was started by a well known female white supremacist. Just a fun little fact. They have far reaching influence at all levels of government and law enforcement.

I do not have much hope for My beloved adult world on Second World.

[DarkRavenWolfie]

let us hold our horses before jumping to conclusions imho

 

IF there was any actual concern, im confident LL would have adressed it already.

Edited May 10, 2018 by DarkRavenWolfie

[Innula Zenovka]

On 5/10/2018 at 4:36 AM, DarkRavenWolfie said:

let us hold our horses before jumping to conclusions imho

Where's the fun in that?